1951-04-05

THE PRESIDENT OF FRANCE


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I desire to move, seconded, I hope, by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew):
That the address of the President of the French republic, Mr. Vincent Auriol, delivered before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada in the chamber of the House of Commons on April 5. 1951, together with the introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons Debates and form part of the records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
(For text of address of the President of the French republic, with speeches of welcome and thanks, see appendix, pages 1663-8.)

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay before the house the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the library of parliament.



CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF JOINT COMMITTEE

Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar) moved:: That the first report of the joint committee of both houses on the library of parliament, presented this day, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to move the adjournment of the house -


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member is making a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 31, this is not the proper time to do so. Standing order 31 reads as follows:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business (standing order 15) has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
The question of the proper time at which to make this motion was discussed briefly in the house on November 7, 1949. At that time I pointed out that in my opinion the proper time to make this motion was immediately before notices of motions or orders of the day. I have considered the matter since that time and am of the opinion that if it had been the intention of parliament when this rule was introduced that the motion should be made immediately after routine proceedings, the rule would have stopped there; that is to say, it would have read:
Leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the house (when made for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance) must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business.
But the rule parliament approved went further and added:
-and before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.
It is clear that the motion is made after the daily routine of business. In my opinion it is equally clear that it should be made immediately before notices of motions or orders of the day. I believe that the reason why the rule was drawn in this way was to make sure that all the business of the house which was not of a controversial nature would be duly attended to. Hon. members know that in the daily routine of business there is little that is debatable. Under questions, there is nothing that is debatable. Again, under notices of motions for the production of papers, there is nothing that is debatable. That is the kind of business that must be disposed of. I therefore rule that the motion to adjourn the house under standing order 31 must be made after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and immediately before notices of motions or orders of the day are entered upon.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the attempt to introduce the motion which you have declared to be irregular at that time will not in any way change the priority, in view of the fact that I have already indicated to you my intention of presenting a motion for the adjournment of the house at the proper time.


Mr. Speaker:: I concur in what the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has said. The leader of the opposition has already sent me written notice that he proposes to move the adjournment of the house under standing

Cost of Living
order 31. I should probably add that an intimation was made to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the leader of his party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), would also introduce a motion to this effect. Under the circumstances, I think I should decide now that when the time comes for making this motion, I will see the leader of the opposition.
(The ordinary daily routine of business having been concluded:)



COST OF LIVING

[Stage Direction]
MOTION FOR ADJOURNMENT UNDER STANDING ,	ORDER 31
['Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. gentleman put his question on the order paper.']
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave,
seconded by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 31 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the announcement yesterday of the greatest monthly increase in Canadian cost of living during the month of February to the disastrously high level of 179-7 points; and the urgent need for vigorous action by the government and the immediate adoption of such measures as will halt inflation, hold down the cost of living and restore confidence in the Canadian dollar.


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to decide whether this motion is in order and also whether it is of urgent public importance. The meaning of urgency as set forth in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 174, is as follows:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough . . .
Today being Thursday there can be no debate upon going into supply. Under standing order 28, when such an order is called on a Thursday or Friday, the Speaker leaves the chair without question put. If I thought there would1 be in the immediate future an opportunity to debate this matter, I would not consider it to be urgent within the meaning of the rules. However, I do not at the present time see that there will be an opportunity for discussing this matter in the immediate future.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the budget is being brought down next Tuesday and that a debate of this kind is of course appropriate under the budget. As to urgency, the figures referred to were with regard to the increase in the cost of living during the month of February, which is some five weeks

ago. The fact that they were published only a day or two ago does not, I think, suggest that we should urgently deal with a matter that happened five weeks ago.
I would also point out that the matter of the increase in the cost of living has been discussed on two occasions during this session. Therefore it seems to me that the motion is out of order.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, as I have introduced the motion and as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) has expressed his view, I would ask your permission to offer my reasons for believing that this matter should be debated at this time. Under the practice of this house, there will not be an opportunity either today, tomorrow or on Monday to introduce a motion which would make it possible-


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, if we move to go into supply, that will certainly be an opportune time to discuss any matter or any grievance against the government.


Mr. Graydon:: Did you say "if"?


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of Public Works
(Mr. Fournier) has indicated uncertainty with regard to Monday or Tuesday by the use of the word "if" which he has introduced into his remarks; because it is possible for the house to proceed to deal with the estimates of the departments already introduced without introducing a new motion to go into supply. Therfore there is no assurance that the house will be able to deal with this subject.
As to the question of urgency raised by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and the fact that the figures published yesterday related to accumulated figures of five weeks ago, what he says is perfectly true. But this is the first occasion on which the house has had an opportunity to express its opinion with regard to such an important indication of the trend which affects every Canadian. I suggest that there is no single subject having regard to the domestic affairs of Canada today which so urgently calls for consideration by this house, and there is no subject upon which the members of this house should have an opportunity at an earlier date to express their opinion than upon this runaway inflation that is now evidenced by these figures that we have seen.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the motion before you seeks the opportunity for the members of this house to indicate at the earliest possible moment their own belief as to whether or not the situation disclosed by

these figures, and the trend which they make apparent, should be dealt with in some way by the government at this time. In any event, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you with respect that if there is any question on this point you permit the members of this house to decide by their recorded vote.


Mr. Abbott:: May I say just a word on the question of urgency, Mr. Speaker? As the house knows, on Tuesday evening I intend to move that the house go into committee of ways and means. In the course of my remarks preceding that motion I shall have a good deal to say on this world-wide phenomenon of inflation-it is not confined to Canada-and every hon. member will have an opportunity of voicing his views before the motion is put to the house.
I suggest that the question of urgency, which of course is for Your Honour to decide, is not such as to necessitate two debates on . the same subject, on which we have already had two in this house, as the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has indicated.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar has the floor.


Mr. Coldwell:: I should like to support the view expressed by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). We intended to introduce a motion in terms almost identical with that suggested by the leader of the opposition. I should like to point this out. While it is perfectly true that the budget will be brought down on Tuesday evening, yet the debate on the budget is not a narrow one. We debate all matters regarding the Canadian economy and the Canadian financial system, taxation and all the rest of it. I submit that this is a matter of some urgency, Mr. Speaker.
It is true that the figures produced yesterday relate to a situation that developed some weeks ago, but since then we have had more of this runaway inflation and the house should be given an opportunity to discuss the matter now in order that the government may know now, before the vote on the budget is taken or the discussion on the budget has taken place, what the opinion of this house is in that connection.
And I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter of some urgency affecting the welfare of great masses of the Canadian people. Indeed, I heard over the radio yesterday that in one of our Canadian cities people living on fixed incomes, old age pensions and the like, are suffering from malnutrition. This house has no right to delay the discussion on
Cost of Living
this subject when people of this country are suffering from malnutrition because of the runaway inflation.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: I should probably point out
to the hon. member for Springfield that it is irregular to raise a point of order on a point of order. However, it may be that the hon. member for Springfield is raising the question as to whether or not this matter is urgent. I will hear the hon. member for Springfield.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, there are others in this house who are interested in what is going on in this country besides the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party. I quite agree with you when you rule that the-


Mr. Casselman:: What is the point of order?


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: -leader of the opposition was out of order in discussing the fact that the cost of living had risen to 179 and some odd points.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have made no
such ruling as the hon. member has suggested. I will hear the Minister of Public Works, unless the hon. member for Springfield wishes to state his point of order briefly.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Mr. Speaker, my point of
order is this. According to Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms, third edition, 1943:
The motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session.
My point of order is this. I do not wish to discuss anything which has already been discussed in the session. I merely wish to discuss the rising-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that your ruling will have to conform to citation 174 of Beauchesne, third edition, which reads:
"Urgency" within this rule does not apply to the matter itself, but it means "urgency of debate," when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the house do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and public interest demands that discussion take place immediately.
Our difficulty in discussing this citation is that the decision and the ruling will be in your discretion, even though the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. party will tell us that if we do not discuss this question immediately a catastrophe will occur in the country. It is so important that we should hear their voices right now, but if we

Cost of Living
do not hear their voices a calamity will take place in our country. That may be true. They believe that. They think that if they do not speak in this house today it will be too late for the salvation of the country. Well, if you agree with these two hon. gentlemen, any hon. member who is convinced that what is going on in the country is not right could use that same argument. And it has been, used twice in this session with as much force and in as violent language by certain members of the opposition whom I have heard in the house. They have said, if we do not discuss the high cost of living, if we do not impose controls immediately our country will be out of luck. Now, Mr. Speaker will, in his mind-and I am trying to be fair-have to decide if it is so important that members of the opposition, or even members on the government side, have to tell us that the cost of living has gone up 4 points plus something. Everybody in the country knows that.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said: We have to tell the house and the country what is taking place. Well, they just learned it from the papers yesterday.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, may we have a few minutes? I cannot come back at eight o'clock and argue the matter.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the motion was not presented with the explanation that it was for the purpose of telling the government that their own figures were accurate. This is not so hilarious a subject as some hon. members seem to think. The purpose of the motion is to permit hon. members to say in this house that they think action should be taken now to deal with the situation disclosed by the figures.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker,-


Alphonse Fournier: I hope the hon. gentleman has something to add to what the leader of the opposition has said.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say-


Alphonse Fournier: Is it a question of privilege?


Major James William Coldwell: -it is true I read in the newspapers what the hon, gentleman says. But if the government knew this before, then they have been derelict in their duty.


Alphonse Fournier: You see, it may have been urgent that the hon. member say that to the government right now. But we learned this, as the public learned it, when figures were brought out by the statistics branch.
[Mr. Fournier (Hull).J
Now, my fear is that even after listening to what you gentlemen will say, it will not change the minds of the people.


An hon. Member:: The government.


Major James William Coldwell: We want to change the mind of the government.


Alphonse Fournier: I am speaking of the people we represent in this house. It would not change the minds of the people, because they have read the same thing you have read in the papers.


George Alexander Drew: That does not follow.


Alphonse Fournier: You want to amplify in debate what you already saw in the press. I do not believe you have the right to do it; I think you are wrong in trying to do it. The question, Mr. Speaker, is if it is in your opinion for the good of the people of Canada that this evening we should-


An hon. Member:: Yes.


Alphonse Fournier: You are the only one who believes it. Is it your opinion that we should listen to these gentlemen during the evening, and that it will change the situation so that it will force the government tomorrow, which is Friday-we cannot do it on Saturday-


George Alexander Drew: Does not the government act on Friday?


Alphonse Fournier: -to introduce legislation which would not be carried tomorrow? Is it your opinion that this will help the situation in Canada? I do not know that it will.


Mr. Knowles:: There is legislation now.


Alphonse Fournier: Even if we have, it is not by the speeches that you make that the government would take a decision it did not wish to take.
And, Mr. Speaker, after listening to the eloquent speeches these gentlemen will make, there will be no immediate change in the country. I suggest that on Monday, as a first order, I move that we go into supply. That is only Monday. At that time we could discuss the whole situation. We will have the whole thing before us to make a decision. However, if you try it before, I am not sure you will impress the members of the government, who have to attend certain functions, with which the opposition told us they were ready to help us.
We have taken these engagements. Probably I will have to sit here at eight o'clock and argue the whole thing out, because my colleagues want to attend the function. And immediately after you have made those speeches, the result will be the same. There

will be no change, even in the minds of the people because I do not think you are convincing enough to make the people change their minds. And when you are through at eleven o'clock the subject will have been-


An hon. Member:: Horsed around.


Alphonse Fournier: No, the subject will have been spent, and the result will be more speeches on Hansard concerning the cost of living, speeches that could be made on Monday just as well.
I would ask the leader of the opposition in his kindly way to withdraw this motion.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Alphonse Fournier: He would have the support of his colleagues if he were to do so, I suppose. I would ask that he withdraw this motion, and on Monday I will move to go into supply, when that subject may be considered.
If that is satisfactory, then Mr. Speaker would not have to make a ruling, which would be quite embarrassing because it might mean he does not believe that speeches by certain members are so urgent.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in view of the request made I would point out that having regard to the subject I have raised I do not propose to withdraw the motion. I would suggest that in view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works has indicated that there are other matters of importance, the house might well agree in the belief that the minister perhaps is not exactly correct, and that you should make your ruling in regard to the motion.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter you will have to take the responsibility of deciding. I have listened to many discussions on points of order in this house in regard to this standing order, but I certainly have never heard anything suggested such as the Minister of Public Works has suggested today. Surely it has not reached the point where an opposition or a private member cannot make a motion of this kind, and cannot ask the government to act. Surely that is no reason for refusing the motion. That does not say that an emergency does not exist.
The motion we are discussing now is not on the general question of the cost of living, but rather a proposal to discuss the enormous increase in the cost of living announced yesterday, and the effect that will have on the people of Canada. And, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that a question that is of great urgency, such as this one, cannot be left over
Cost of Living
until some convenient time when we could discuss it. Because if it could be left over it is no longer a question of urgency.
May I draw the attention of the house to standing order 31 (3), which says that the member moving the motion-
-then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house. If objection is taken, Mr. Speaker requests those members who support the motion to rise in their places and, if more than twenty members rise accordingly, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who has asked for leave.
Now, sir, the point is clear, that if in your opinion the question before us is not one of urgent public importance you will say so, and that ends it; but if you believe it is a question of urgent public importance you will ascertain the wish of the members of the house, and they will decide whether or not the question will be discussed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; I will hear the hon. member for Glengarry.


Mr. Major:: As a producer of eggs, I am bewildered by this motion, because during the last war there was a ceiling of fifty cents a dozen on eggs, and I was receiving fifty cents a dozen during that time. I was home during Easter week, and we were receiving only forty-eight cents a dozen. If that is an increase in the cost of living, I cannot see it.


Mr. Speaker:: I am placed in a rather difficult position, but I must make a ruling, in accordance with the established procedure in the house.
It was mentioned by one hon. member that there had been a previous debate on this subject, and that is correct. When a motion similar to this one was made shortly after that debate I raised the question as to whether it was in order. However, some considerable time has intervened, and I would not at this time rule the motion out of order merely because there had been a previous debate some time ago on a subject relating to the increase in the cost of living.
By not ruling the motion out of order on that ground I would not want it to be taken as a precedent so that every time there is a rise in the cost of living a motion like this would be considered in order. This matter is of some importance because the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has moved a motion, the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) has attempted to move a motion and the hon. member for Springfield has also attempted to move a motion. Accordingly it is a very important matter, and I think we all agree that that is so.

Cost of Living
It was suggested that the budget will be brought down on Tuesday night after which time there will be an opportunity to discuss this question. I must however point out to the house that it is customary after the budget is brought down to adjourn the debate thereon for several days, sometimes for a week, in order that hon. members may familiarize themselves with the contents of the budget. So there is no assurance that hon. members will be given an opportunity to speak on this subject in the immediate future.
I may say that until the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) spoke I was firmly of the opinion that this motion came within the rules of urgency as set forth in Beauchesne's third edition, citation 174. The question is not how urgent the matter is so far as you and I and all the people of Canada are concerned, but how urgent it is having regard to the opportunity which will be given to hon. members of this house to debate the subject. If the Minister of Public Works had not risen and said that at the opening of the house on Monday he would move to go into committee of supply I would have ruled that this matter was one which was urgent within the rules of the house.
However, the Minister of Public Works, speaking on behalf of the government, has stated that on Monday he will move a motion to go into committee of supply as the first order of business. I might point out to hon. members that if I declared that this motion was one of urgency within the rules of the house the debate could go on just for the three hours this evening and that would be the end. After that time hon. members would not have an opportunity to discuss the matter because standing order 31 provides that such a motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session. That is to say, either tomorrow or on Monday an hon. member could not move the adjournment of the house for this purpose.
When the Minister of Public Works moves that the house go into committee of supply on Monday there will be at least six hours during which hon. members can discuss this matter. Added to that an hon. member will be able to move a motion with respect to the matter. At the present time an hon. member could not move such a motion. Since the Minister of Public Works, speaking for the government, has stated that he will move that the house go into supply on Monday I rule that this question is not one of urgency today. Hon. members will have an opportunity to discuss this matter on Monday in accordance with the assurance given by the Minister of Public Works.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, with the reason that has been given for not permitting a debate now, and without accepting that as having the finality that there would be if a vote were called, I simply would explain that I do not propose to ask for a vote on the ruling in view of what has been said about the debate on Monday. But I do give notice to you that I shall introduce an amendment at the time the motion is made to go into committee of supply.


John Sylvester Aloysius Sinnott: Introduce your same motion.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: In
the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on official business I should like to give notice of a question which he can answer on his return to the house. Is it the intention of the government to take any official action over the latest rebuke by General MacArthur to the elected representatives of the people?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minisier of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's
question will be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


[Stage Direction]
REPORTED PURCHASE OF BUILDING IN LONDON, ONT.j FOR USE OF INCOME TAX DIVISION
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. O. White (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Revenue, but neither of them is here. Possibly the Minister of Public Works might have answered it but he is not here. My question arises out of am article in Tuesday's London Free Press regarding the sale of a building in London, Ontario, owned by Westmount Realties of Montreal, to the dominion government for the use of the income tax division. As a result of this transaction the city of London will lose $8,000 a year in taxes, and I should like to know whether any provision will be made for that loss of revenue. Second, the option was for a period of ten years and the period has not elapsed. The option price was $550,000 and

$600,000 has been paid. In other words, the taxpayers are out $50,000.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I would ask the hon. member to state his question as briefly as possible.


Harry Oliver White: Why not continue the lease for the ten-year period?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon. gentleman put his question on the order paper.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I have waited a couple of days for the Minister of Agriculture to be here, and I am now going to put my question so that he will have notice of it. When will the guaranteed price support be paid to the potato growers of Prince Edward Island, and what price per bushel will the producers receive? Will the government of Prince Edward Island pay the total amount and then be reimbursed by the federal government?

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
471. Departmental administration, $1,199,818.
Mr. Green:: Is the minister making a statement on this?


Lionel Chevrier: On what?


Howard Charles Green: Is the minister making a statement?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not propose to make a statement. I propose to proceed in the usual manner, and if hon. members have certain matters they wish to raise I shall try to deal with them as well as I can.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, it is quite
evident that we are going to have a quiet homey evenings with only the best of us here. I should get unanimous support for that remark.


Donald MacInnis: Including the best minister.


Howard Charles Green: However, I know that the other ministers and members are busy with very important duties helping to entertain the President of France. This is the first occasion on which the estimates of the Department of Transport for the present fiscal year have
Supply-Transport
been under consideration. Before proceeding to deal with the department, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River on his appointment as parliamentary assistant to the minister. He has been a very conscientious member, and I am quite sure will fill this post with great benefit to the country and great honour to himself. I wish him good luck.
This year the most important business to be considered by the house under the estimates of the Department of Transport is the report of the royal commission on transportation. The whole problem of transportation has always been one of the main questions facing Canadian legislatures and the Canadian people. That is perfectly understandable of course because of the vast distances in this country and the scattered settlements from one coast to the other. There probably would have been no Canada as we know it today if special provision had not been made to link the maritimes with what was known as Upper Canada by the Intercolonial Railway, and also to link British Columbia with central Canada by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Today, just as in the days following confederation, transportation is of vital importance to the Canadian people. We are fortunate at this session in having had a report from the royal commission on transportation. The commissioners have gone into most of the aspects of our transportation problem, and I think have made a very important report. Whether or not one agrees with all the recommendations, the fact remains that the men who made this investigation are very distinguished Canadians, the Hon. W. F. A. Turgeon, who was chairman, Dr. H. F. Angus of British Columbia and Dr. H. A. Innis of Toronto. They brought to their work a great zeal to serve their country and displayed ability in conducting this investigation; I think this is one of the most important reports ever to have been placed before the Canadian parliament.
We have not had the report very long. It was tabled a few days before the house recessed for Easter, and probably very few members have had the opportunity to study it carefully. It is a lengthy report, and I must admit that I personally have not reviewed it as carefully as I propose to do. I hope the house will be given an opportunity to study it thoroughly, and for this purpose it might be possible to make use of one of the committees of the house. We have a very competent committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines; I cannot say anything else, because I am a member of that committee. I see no reason why that committee could not

Supply-Transport
make a study of this report. From what the Prime Minister said when he tabled it, I take it some legislation will be placed before the house, and in any event I urge the minister to refer that legislation to this committee. In that way it will be possible to have such legislation given more careful consideration than if it goes through the house here in the ordinary way; it would also enable members of the committee to get a better understanding of at least some of Canada's transportation problems.
That is important, because from this report we have an opportunity to work out a national policy on transportation. Of course there would be differences of opinion on different aspects of such a policy, but it might be surprising how close to unanimity we could come on such a policy. You see, Mr. Chairman, transportation does not involve only the railways. It includes shipping, under which we have ocean-going shipping, coastal shipping, the traffic on the great lakes and the shipping through the canals, which is increasing in importance all the time and will continue to do so, particularly if the St. Lawrence seaway should be constructed. We have the airways, steadily becoming more important in Canada. They have been important from the start of flying and Canada has made great progress in aviation. Young Canadians seem to take to the air naturally; they make wonderful fliers. Aviation in our north country has always been far ahead of similar flying in any other country, and aviation generally is of great importance to our people.
Then some of the members have heard of pipe lines, which have become another aspect of the transportation problem facing this country. They would be included in a study such as I have' mentioned.
Then there are the highways. There is quite an insistent demand that the federal government should step into the highway picture. I am not taking sides on that question tonight, and merely say that the commission expressed doubt as to just how far the dominion government could go in the matter of regulating highway traffic. In any event, the highways do enter into the transportation picture.
So here we have a series of recommendations which might very well be worked into a good transportation policy for Canada. It would be a great tragedy if we allowed this report to be treated as parliament treated the Rowell-Sirois report. That was a splendid report prepared after a great deal of work by exceptionally capable men. I believe Dr. Angus was also a member of that commission. Parliament did not have an opportunity to

debate that report. I always thought it was a great tragedy that we did not thoroughly discuss and study the Rowell-Sirois report. I am sure that if we had done so there would have been beneficial results to Canada. Let us not have the same thing happen to this Turgeon report on transportation.
This evening I have no intention of going into the various recommendations at any length, but I would ask the minister to deal with at least some of the matters covered in the report. For instance, there is a very interesting proposal at page 253 in a chapter entitled "The rail link between east and west." It describes northern Ontario, the territory from Fort William to Sudbury, as a land bridge between eastern and western Canada, where practically no freight or passenger traffic originates. The commission finds this to be a sort of no man's land, and recommends that the government of Canada pay a subsidy to the railways to cover the cost of operating in that area. At page 253 of the report there is a very good summary of the attitude of the commission on this point:
The overhead cost of linking east and west together has been a matter of national concern from the earliest days. It is the existence of this necessary link between Canada's two vast areas that must be recognized. It is called for, not only by the requirements of the exchange of goods for commercial purposes, but also by those of our national defence structure. The problem presented is that of maintaining this link so long at least as it does not provide sufficient revenue for its own maintenance. This problem concerns the whole country and not only its western portion, and the responsibility for its solution should be assumed by the nation as, for instance, in the case of the maintenance of our canal system.
As hon. members know, the canal system, which is largely in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, is maintained by the country without cost to the users of those canals. Then the commissioners, after referring to this link as a bridge, go on to recommend-
. . . with the whole cost of maintaining the bridge over which the traffic between the two large areas must pass, just as the toll-free canals in central Canada are maintained at public expense for the passage of traffic through them.
The report states that the estimated amount of subsidy would be about $7 million annually. Those of us who come through that part of the country several times a year realize how accurate the picture is that is painted by the commissioners. I believe they have made out a splendid case for subsidization of this particular traffic. I hope that the government will accept that recommendation and will provide a subsidy during the present session. ^ I would ask that the minister deal with this recommendation when he replies.
Another recommendation on which I should like to have his remarks is contained

at page 122 of the report in a chapter entitled "Equalization". This chapter sets out that it now appears to be fairly generally accepted by the government and also by the railways that there should be a broad principle of equalization of rates throughout the country. The commissioners point out that in April of 1948 order in council P.C. 1487 was passed, which directed the board of transport commissioners to conduct a freight rate investigation-
. . . with a view to the establishment of a fair and reasonable rates structure, which will, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, be equal in its application to all persons and localities . . .
That was an order in council passed of course by the present government in April of 1948. The railways apparently have not quarrelled very violently with the suggestion that there should be a broad general principle of equalization of these rates. One suggestion that the commissioners make is that on the long hauls the rates should be based on greater distance than on the short hauls. To make myself clear, let me put it this way. For example, if it costs $100 to move freight one hundred miles on a short haul, on the long haul that charge should be $100 for two hundred miles. I think that explains one of the suggestions they had in mind, namely, that the rate should not be just on a basis of mile for mile, but where a long haul was involved, should be lower than where there was a short haul.
They say the objective should be to get a uniform rate structure. At page 127, paragraph 10, we find this statement. They have listed various items which could help to bring about this result and say:
The foregoing items point to a new departure in class rates and commodity mileage rates, and eventually, in so far as practicable, in special or specific rates for the Canadian portion of the North American continent. It appears that Canada has reached a stage in its development when former methods of making regional rates must give way to a uniform rate structure that, as far as may be possible, will treat all citizens, localities, districts and1 regions alike.
That of course has been the plea of seven of the provinces of Canada for many years; it has been the plea of all of the provinces except Ontario and Quebec which seem to be satisfied with the present rate structure. One can understand that, because in Ontario and Quebec there is competition by road and by water to a far greater extent than there is in any of the other seven provinces. The result is that the rates in Ontario and Quebec are not as high as they are in the other provinces, and certainly not as high as they are in western Canada. I am not mentioning the position in Newfoundland because I am
Supply-Transport
not fully informed on that particular aspect of the subject. One reason I am pointing out this question of equalization to the minister is that the commission recommends that there be legislation. This improvement can only be made by an amendment to the Railway Act. In paragraph 12 on page 127 the commissioners recommend1 as follows:
Changes should be made in the "traffic, tolls and tariffs" sections of the Railway Act in order to empower the board to effect and maintain the uniformity in rates throughout Canada herein recommended.
If the government accepts that recommendation-and I hope it will-then let legislation be brought in at this session so that a start can be made on complying with the recommendation of the commission.
Another subject which is also of great importance and which likewise calls for an amendment to the Railway Act is that of transcontinental rates. They are dealt with at page 96 of the report, and I refer particularly to page 101 where it is stated:
The Railway Act should be amended to provide that when the competitive transcontinental tariffs are published by the railways, such tariffs shall contain a provision that the rates to or from intermediate territory shall not exceed the transcontinental rates by more than one-third.
As I understand it, the meaning of that recommendation is this. There are certain special transcontinental rates, for example, from Toronto and Montreal to Vancouver. They are only in effect because there is competition by sea and we benefit by those rates on the west coast. I presume there is also a similar benefit from transcontinental rates on the east coast. But the Canadians who live in the interior part of the country-for example, in interior British Columbia, in Alberta and, I suppose, in Saskatchewan as well-do not get any benefits from those transcontinental rates. They must pay a much higher rate. The commission has recommended that the higher rate that they pay in the interior portions of the country shall not be more than one-third higher than the transcontinental rates. I believe that that provision, if it became law, would be of great benefit to those Canadians who are not privileged to live at the seashore. I hope that the government will bring in an amendment to the Railway Act at this session to make that change possible as well.
Then there are in the report sections dealing with three subjects which I shall link together. First of all, there is the subject of Crowsnest pass rates. The reference to those rates will be found beginning at page 238. As hon. members know, those are the rates which enable wheat to be shipped to either coast at a freight

Supply-Transport
rate lower than the ordinary one. The finding of the commissioners is that there should be no change in those Crows-nest rates.
Then there are the provisions under the Maritime Freight Rates Act. The report on these provisions is found at page 228, and there is a recommendation that there should be no change, that the benefits under the Maritime Freight Rates Act should not be cut down. They do recommend that there be some amendments to the act to bring it into line with the actual practice in the administration of the act.
The third subject which I wish to link with the other two is the question of amalgamation or unification of the railways. We find at pages 128 and 276 a very definite recommendation by the commission that there should be no unification of the railways and no amalgamation. I would like to know from the minister this evening the intention of the government on these three points:	whether
or not the recommendations of the commission on the Crowsnest rates, the Maritime Freight Rates Act and the question of amalgamation will be accepted. I may say that personally the recommendations seem to me to be very sound.
Another subject with which I suggest the minister should deal this evening is the recommendation by the commissioners that there should be only one board supervising railways, shipping, and aviation. Their findings on that question will be found at page 276 of the report under the heading "Coordination." They point out that at the present time the board of transport commissioners in reality has jurisdiction only over the railways and certain small portions of the shipping activities of the country. Then there is the air transport board, which has charge of aviation activities, and the Canadian maritime commission, which has most of the authority in connection with shipping in Canada.
Back in 1938, as the minister will remember, a bill was brought into the house and passed entitled "The Transport Act". It was declared to be an act to establish a board of transport commissioners for Canada with authority with respect to transport by railways, ships and aircraft. The new board was in effect simply the board of railway commissioners for Canada under a different name. In 1938 the intention was to put all these three activities under one board, but ever since then the government has followed a different policy. By degrees it has transferred the authority to other boards. For example, in 1944 the air transport board was set up, and against the objections of

quite a few of the members of the house, including myself, that air transport board was given all jurisdiction over aviation; in addition it was set up not as an independent judicial body, such as the board of transport commissioners, but set up directly under a minister, and in effect subject to the orders of the minister. It was really just an administrative branch of a department. We protested bitterly at the time about that set-up. Now the commissioners have recommended that this control be taken away from the air transport board and given to the board of transport commissioners.
Then in 1947 the Canadian maritime commission was set up, and as I said a few moments ago was given jurisdiction over shipping. Now the board recommends that jurisdiction too be placed with the board of transport commissioners. Frankly, I have not been able to convince myself that that is a wise recommendation. It may be. I may change my mind on further study, but I believe that the Canadian maritime commission has a function to fulfil in keeping up the merchant fleet of this country and in making provisions for war vessels to be built; it has a function that can never be adequately fulfilled by the board of transport commissioners. However, such is the recommendation of the Turgeon commission.
Dealing with co-ordination, they say at page 280:
All this leads to the question whether the policy of close co-ordination and central control to which parliament seemed inclined to commit itself in the Transport Act of 1938, should not be invoked once again with the view to its extension rather than to its restriction which has been the trend of more recent enactments. If this policy of 1938 can be revised and made effective it should properly have its beginning in the establishment of a strong control organism capable of taking the task in hand.
They mean by that strengthening of the board of transport commissioners, I presume. Then the paragraph goes on:
Today there are three separate bodies, each charged with the control (a more or less extensive control in each case) of a part of Canada's transportation system. They are the board of transport commissioners, the air transport board and the Canadian maritime commission. It must be difficult, with this dispersion of control, to apply to all of Canada's transportation agencies like principles of regulation for the accomplishment of a common purpose, namely, that of enabling each agency to perform its service advantageously and properly as part of a national transportation structure. The tendency of a separate independent body is to formulate policy affecting transportation without regard to the relationship of the various agencies to each other.
This anomaly-
And here is the recommendation:
-should give way to the constitution of a central authority which will be able to take in hand the major task of co-ordinated control, having at its

disposal all the benefit acquired from the experience of the separate bodies in recent years.
The adoption of this policy would bring together the three above named bodies, reorganized and united and devoted henceforth to the pursuit of a well planned policy for the co-ordination and regulation of transportation.
That is a very definite finding, and I believe the House of Commons should be told what the attitude of the government is with regard to that recommendation.
Another subject dealt with at length by the commission is the refinancing of the Canadian National Railways. As the minister knows, I am no financial wizard; I shall leave that subject to the hon. member for Greenwood. But I believe we should know the attitude of the government toward recommendations made by the commission for the refinancing of the Canadian National Railways.
There is one other recommendation on which I should like to have the government's view, and that has to do with the expansion of railways. The recommendation is found at page 130 of the report, under the heading "Proposed railway expansion and matters incidental thereto." After dealing with the situation in the United States with regard to the expansion of railways, the report states:
In Canada the situation is somewhat different. There is still room for railway expansion where it is called for by the needs of settlers already established in productive areas or by the necessity of making available new areas possessing mineral and other natural resources attainable only by railway.
I point out the words "already established in productive areas." It continues:
It seems to be generally assumed that most, if not all, railway expansion in the foreseeable future will be carried on by the government of Canada or by the Canadian National Railways which the government owns. The day of ill-conceived and therefore excessive construction seems to have gone by, and our people can feel reasonably assured that from now on no railway ventures will be undertaken excepting after thorough investigation of each project and always with due regard to the financial commitments involved.
That sounds like a very reasonable recommendation. No doubt nearly everyone in the chamber this evening has nodded his head, and thought, "That is a good suggestion; that would be a good policy." I am not so sure that in adopting that attitude we are thinking in the year 1951. I am a little afraid that we are looking back to those days thirty years ago when we had a lot of railway trouble, to the days when the Canadian National Railways had to be set up and when everyone became thoroughly hostile to the spending of money for the laying down of further railways.
Supply-Transport
I think the commissioners have been bitten by that bug. I am not so sure that Canada should adopt such a reactionary policy with regard to the building of railways. For example, the commissioners say in this paragraph:
There is still room for railway expansion where it is called for by the needs of settlers already established in productive areas.
It is not so easy to get people to go into those areas when they have no chance of getting railway communication for many years. It just does not work out that way. We have one good example in Canada of the weakness of such a policy, and that is to be found in the Peace river country. There we have a great producing area, the citizens of which are among the outstanding pioneers of our generation. Yet they have never been able to get a railway outlet to the Pacific coast.
Every year since I came here there has been a plea in the house by members from all parties for the building of such a railway, but nothing has been done about it. That railway is no nearer being built today than it was twenty years ago, and if the policy set out at page 130 of the Turgeon commission report is followed in detail by the government there will not be much chance of a rail outlet to the Pacific coast from the Peace river area during the lifetime of the present government. I hope of course that that may not be very long. But, speaking seriously, I think we must be careful not to permit our thinking to get into a groove, and that we must not fail to realize that conditions are changing.
Great developments are going on in Canada today. There are great developments in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, northern Manitoba, northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta, northern British Columbia, the Northwest Territories and in Labrador. For this country to adopt a policy whereby there would be no railways built until there are plenty of settlers up there who are able to produce, and to fail to supply the only possible way in which they can send out their products, would be unwise. I hope the government will not accede to this recommendation by the-commission.
Those are the only points in the report about which I would ask the minister to make a statement this evening. I regret that the commission failed to deal with the St. Lawrence waterway. I realize it was not instructed to do so, and that it might have been difficult to reach any definite conclusion in the matter. However, if the St. Lawrence seaway is constructed there will be many far-reaching results to the transportation system

Supply-Transport
of Canada, and certainly that of eastern Canada. I regret that no provision has been made for studying the effect on our transportation system of the construction of that seaway. If we had the results of such a study we would be much better able to bring good judgment to bear on the project than we are going to be able to do under present conditions.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: Order. I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. member has exhausted his time.


Howard Charles Green: I have just about finished.


Joseph-Alfred Dion: With unanimous consent the hon. member could continue.


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Howard Charles Green: I am afraid that a proposal will be put forward suggesting that we must have the St. Lawrence seaway, and that there will not be sufficient information in the house for hon. members to understand the whole picture. The result will probably not be as satisfactory as if we had had a detailed survey by a group such as the Turgeon commission. Perhaps provision could still be made to set up a commission to study just what the effect of that seaway will be on our transportation system.
Finally I would ask the minister to let us know what progress has been made with the general freight rates investigation being conducted by the board of transport commissioners. They were authorized, in 1948 I believe, to conduct a general freight rates investigation at the same time the royal commission was doing its work. It would be most helpful if we were told what progress has been made.
In conclusion, may I repeat that the time to review this report in detail and to debate it in this house is during this 1951 session. The time to get action on the report is during the present session. This is the time when we should have legislation to carry out at least some of the recommendations made in the report. Let us give as much of this work as possible to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. There was a time when that committee was perhaps the busiest committee of the house, and I believe that is why the railway committee room is so named. In my opinion the position today is as it was>
after the first world war when transportation was the most vital internal problem facing the Canadian people.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to pursue the subject raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, but I would like to discuss a matter which is familiar both to myself and to the Minister of Transport. I do not raise it at this time for the

purpose of embarrassing or criticizing the minister or his department, but rather to obtain clarification.
I have been accused of being the chief Liberal spokesman for the federal government in Nova Scotia in connection with this particular project. 1 refer to the recommendations made to this house in 1949 by the Pratley commission which was appointed jointly by the federal and provincial governments for the purpose of resolving the engineering difficulties in connection with constructing a bridge across the strait of Canso.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. member for a moment? I do not know whether there are other hon. members who would like to discuss the royal commission report, but before we get into a discussion of the Canso project I should like to have the opportunity of replying, in part at least, to the questions raised and representations made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. I was hoping that all the speeches on the report would be made in the earlier part of the evening and therefore before the hon. member goes on 1 should like to reply.


Clarence Gillis: If the Minister of Transport is going to reply to all the points raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra he will not finish tonight. The hon. member raised every problem that was dealt with by the commission on transportation.


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no.


Clarence Gillis: You did not miss many.


Lionel Chevrier: He left out one.


Clarence Gillis: I should like to pursue this subject now. After the minister hears everyone he may be able to summarize the matters that have been raised and deal with them briefly. As I was saying when the minister so rudely interrupted me, this Pratley commission was appointed jointly by the provincial and federal governments. The recommendations of that commission were laid before this house. When the minister presented these recommendations he said that there was no engineering difficulty in bridging the strait of Canso. I was quite happy to hear him say that.
Since that report was brought down considerable controversy has developed as to why there should be delay in clearing out the recommendations of the Pratley commission. I should like to make it quite clear that the Canso bridge project has been in the slings for fifty years. Surveys were made many years ago by engineers as to the feasibility and practicability of bridging the strait of Canso.

It has always been an engineering problem. We had engineers before the committee on reconstruction in 1942, including the economic advisory director of the Canadian National Railways. They threw cold water on this project by saying that it was not feasible, that the cost would be too great and that the engineering difficulties were so and so.
Nevertheless the committee on reconstruction recommended the project as a post-war project. The engineering problem continued until the provincial and federal governments got together in an effort to get the top flight engineers in Canada to form a commission and1 make an independent survey. In the past the engineers who had disagreed were government engineers, Canadian National engineers, and in some cases engineers from industry, particularly in Nova Scotia.
The top flight men were selected. The federal government appointed two. Mr. Pratley, who headed the commission and is reckoned as one of the best men in the profession, was appointed by the provincial government of Nova Scotia. After a lot of study and work the commission made a very comprehensive report which was tabled in the house by the minister. I have read that report several times and in my opinion it is an excellent report. They examined the possibilities of a tunnel, of a causeway and of a low-level bridge. They decided on the low-level bridge as being the most practical and least costly.
In the past we were led to believe that the bridge would cost anywhere from $35 million up to as much as $56 million, but the Pratley commission estimated the cost at $13,500,000, quite a considerable difference. In my opinion the federal government have carried1 out their responsibilities, and this is where I got into difficulty with the premier of Nova Scotia. The federal government have spent $258,000 on this project up to date in the way of survey costs, the cost of the engineering commission, wages and so on. The federal government have put that amount into the project and it is not started yet.
I stated in November in Nova Scotia that in my opinion the federal government had carried out its responsibilities and obligations under the report. The first indication of delay, as far as I can figure it out, came when the premier of Nova Scotia notified the federal government that the bridge should be widened by two feet because it did not conform to the highway. I should like to know how many bridges in this country conform to the highways. If there are any, it is through accident.
I have not travelled over very many that
Supply-Transport
were exactly the width of the main highway. As I say, that was the first indication of delay.
The Minister of Transport did indicate in one brief statement that this might mean the redrafting of the plans. The delay continued, and when I raised the matter in Nova Scotia during the time the house was adjourned the premier of Nova Scotia made a long statement. He said that nobody knew what they were talking about except himself. According to a press dispatch I have here he claimed as late as February 28 of this year that the site of the bridge piers held up the Canso project, and he went on to make a statement. That was in the legislature. He gave me quite a going over for being the chief spokesman of the Liberal party in Nova Scotia from the point of view of defending them so far as the Canso project is concerned.
I like to be fair. I am not political in a matter of this kind. I want to see the bridge built, and I believe it will be built despite all obstacles that are put in the way. The Minister of Resources and Development was in Nova Scotia in October of 1950, and according to a press dispatch he stated in an interview with the press that so far as he was concerned there were no bottlenecks in Ottawa with respect to the construction of the bridge. That is what I say, and I was glad to see that he agreed with me. The thing I want to bring to the minister's attention is that while the provincial government selected Dr. Pratley as chairman of that commission and appointed him-


Lionel Chevrier: Dr. Ellis was the chairman.


Clarence Gillis: Why was it called the Pratley
commission?


Lionel Chevrier: No, it was the Ellis commission.


Clarence Gillis: That is not the title he gets in most of the press dispatches that I have seen.


Lionel Chevrier: Those are the facts.


Clarence Gillis: They name him as chairman
of the commission. However, that is immaterial. Pratley was appointed by the Nova Scotia government. In my opinion the controversy during the past couple of months is a reflection on the top flight engineers of Canada who were selected by both governments to make an independent survey of that project. I think their report clearly indicated that it is feasible both from an engineering standpoint and from the standpoint of costs. Not only that, they also recognized the necessity for that particular bridge. It is not a matter of building a political bridge across a river or something like that. It is more

Supply-Transport
important than that. It is a very definite part of the Canadian National Railways system into the largest industrial section east of Montreal, a section that produces approximately one-third of Canada's basic steel and ships out about 95 per cent of it. About half the coal produced in Canada today is produced on the island of Cape Breton and shipped out. It is not a matter of just building a bridge, as some people might think. It is a matter of importance, of making necessary improvements in the Canadian National Railways transportation system.
It is recognized by most people who think and know geography as being essential in this day and age, and I want to see it built. The great majority of the people of Nova Scotia do not want to see a political football made of it. It has been that for a long time.
I am not concerned about blaming anyone in particular for the delay but I am concerned in assessing the facts as I see them and understand them, and if there is someone putting obstacles in the way I am going to point out that person whether or not he likes it. According to a press dispatch I have in my hand from the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, a couple of weeks ago Dr. Pratley was obliged to make a public statement because of statements appearing in the press by laymen who in my opinion knew very little about the project. I am going to read Dr. Pratley's statement into the record because I think it comes from a man who is an authority on the subject, a man who was a member of the commission, and a man who has a reputation to maintain in his profession. I do not blame him for having made use of the press to clarify an issue that has been made a political football.
I rose at this time merely to bring this matter to the attention of the minister in case he has not seen it, because the minister is a key figure in this controversy. I do not want to drag him into any provincial difficulties but I want him to know exactly what is going on because in the final analysis if the bridge is ever built I think it will be built because of pressure and honesty on the part of somebody in the federal government, and I think that somebody will probably be the Minister of Transport. The statement of Dr. Pratley is in answer to the many press statements about the engineering difficulties and so forth. The newspaper article reads as follows:
"The piers of the proposed Canso bridge would withstand the impact of a piece of ice 225 acres in area. 12 feet deep and moving at a speed of 6 feet per second," Dr. P. L. Pratley, consulting engineer, Montreal, told the largest audience ever to attend a

meeting of the Halifax branch of the engineering institute of Canada in an address delivered at the Nova Scotian hotel last night.
"We must have safety factors beyond the bounds of common sense because of the psychology of fear which exists in relation to the Canso bridge project in the light of planned innovations which are perhaps unprecedented but not impossible," Dr. Pratley said.
"I could find no one who had actually seen a piece of ice 5 acres in area, though there were rumours of such 'pans.' Certainly no one has seen one with an area of 25 acres. We have planned the bridge to withstand the impact of a 225-acre piece of ice. There's certainly a factor of safety there."
The development of Intrusion-Prepakt concrete as used in the so-called Disney pier for bridges solved half the problem of erecting a bridge over the strait of Canso. The other half of the problem was deep water . . . deep salt water. Setting forth the "facts" of the Canso bridge plan, Dr. Pratley referred to stories carried in two Nova Scotia newspapers.
They are the ones to which I have just referred.
"These stories were not accurate," he said. "They refer to a second set of plans. There was no second set of plans, nor is there a second set of plans now. They say my plan was rejected. It was not. They say the Canso project was being reconsidered with a view to substituting a causeway for the bridge. Not so. They say a bridge design planned for the Canso strait fifty years ago was used in the construction of the Quebec bridge. That is not so. They say the "columns" of the bridge would rest on mud. They would in fact rest on rock. They say the bridge would have 14 feet clearance above water. It would have 26 feet. They say there would be 26 feet depth of water. In fact it would have at one point 175 feet depth. There are no icebergs in the strait of Canso despite popular belief," Dr. Pratley said. He showed slides of photographs of the "bergs," stating they were in reality pan ice, upended and crushed against rocks on the shore.
"We made a thorough study of navigation in the strait," he said. The lift span in the proposed Canso bridge would be similar to one now in operation in Vancouver harbour which lifts 7,500 times a year. That is far in excess of the number of ships navigating annually in the strait of Canso at the bridge site. "I still say my method is not the only one," Dr. Pratley said, "but in my opinion it is a good one."
I merely rose tonight, Mr. Chairman, to bring this whole matter to the attention of the minister because in the light of the controversy provincially, federally, and among the engineers I asked for the correspondence between the federal department and the provincial government, and a motion was passed in the house on the 26th of February. There is no law which prohibits members of this house getting correspondence of that nature. It is a matter of courtesy on the part of the minister in asking permission of the provincial government to bring down the correspondence, and I have no doubt that in due time the correspondence will be brought down.
There is another thing I want to bring forcefully to the attention of the minister. Most of the public works projects of this

country have been put to one side because of the defence program. Perhaps many of them could be shelved, but this project has been shelved for the past fifty years. In the last war this was one of the worst transportation bottlenecks in eastern Canada. There was a time when the St. Lawrence was threatened with submarines, and we had to go to work and put in auxiliary coal dumping facilities which cost almost as much as it would cost to build a bridge across that strait. You could not take the coal from there on the railways owing to the bottleneck, so you had to ship it by water, and you had to establish these temporary facilities that cost almost as much as a permanent structure.
You may mention the shortage of steel. Why, we turn out steel on Cape Breton island, all kinds of it, so I do not take that as an answer. I consider that project to be part of our defence program. Now we have Newfoundland as the tenth province, with all the additional traffic back and forth and. the large amount of business that has been diverted to Canada, which has to come across that strait. So I believe that project is a must at this time, and I do not accept the objection that it will cost $13 million, or that there may be a shortage of steel, or anything else. I believe the Americans are as interested in getting that bridge as we are. When this matter was under discussion in 1942 a Mr. W. J. Kemp was very much interested, and came to Ottawa in connection with it. His father made the first survey for that bridge away back in 1906 or 1911. Mr. Kemp brought with him the original plans and said his company was still interested. That was the Waddell-Hardesty engineering firm; and at that time he told me that if he could interest the federal government in going ahead with the project, his company would build the bridge. Better than that, he said he could get priority on steel for that project in the United States. Their forces were in Newfoundland at that time, shipping a great deal of material in and out, and they thought the bridge was necessary.
Then there is the question of cost, but that is something to which I do not pay very much attention. There was a time when $13 million would scare me, but not now. Of course there was a time when that was the total of our national income, but when I see billions thrown around now just by the stroke of a pen, the expenditure of $13 million to create a permanent structure and make necessary improvements in our railway system does not frighten me at all. That is no argument at all as to why this project should not be proceeded with. I know one thing, that as far as I am concerned it is not going to be used
Supply-Transport
in the next election campaign as a political football, either provincially or federally. I have exonerated, the federal government; I think they have done all they could up to date, but I think the time has come now when they should back up one of their engineers who has been fighting for the honour of his profession in regard to the accuracy of the reports he made. A great deal of money was put into the work of that commission, and I hope it is not going to be considered just another report.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope the hon. member will not consider me rude if I do not deal with his remarks immediately and answer some of the questions he has put to me. Before I deal with the representations made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, let me tell the hon. member for Cape Breton South that I fully agree that to attempt to reply to all the questions asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would be difficult. I am sure the hon. member, sincere as he is, had no expectation that at this time I could dispose of all the subjects he raised. In any event, I feel that I should say something definite and concrete in reference to the royal commission on transportation.
The Turgeon report, as it has been called, is a very constructive document. Anyone reading it will come to the conclusion immediately that it is also a comprehensive document, the like of which I do not think has been tabled in this house previously. From reading the document it is clearly evident that the conclusions were reached after very careful consideration. In my analysis of the report I divided it in three parts:	first, that part having to do
with the rate structure of Canada, or equalization if you will; next, the recapitalization or refinancing of the Canadian National; third, co-ordination or a national transportation policy for Canada. The other matters dealt with in the report are of a general nature and incidental, I believe, to those three problems.
In those three divisions of the report, the commission poses the problem and suggests the solution. It analyses the complaints of the provinces* by areas and by regions, deals with them at length, and submits its recommendations. With reference to the freight rate structure it states at length the contentions of the provinces. It refers to the complaints of the maritime provinces, to the effect the Maritime Freight Rates Act does not go nearly far enough and that the boundaries of the region should be extended as far west as Toronto or even Windsor and the subsidy increased from 20 per cent to 30

Supply-Transport
per cent. It deals at length with the complaints of the prairie provinces and refers particularly to the long haul, to which my hon. friend referred; to the disadvantages suffered by those extremities of the country because of the long haul, and also the aggravation of those disadvantages by the application of horizontal increases in freight rates. While dealing with the question of freight rates in western Canada the report refers to the fact that there is not the competition in that part of Canada that there is in the central provinces. It deals also with the complaints of British Columbia, respecting removal of the differential in passenger rates consequent upon the removal of the mountain differential which it obtained some short time ago. I believe it also deals at length with the complaints of the province of Newfoundland, and in effect states that the board of transport commissioners having heard the case for Newfoundland, for the time being at least that was not being dealt with in the report.
What I have said so far has to do with the representations listed in the report of the Turgeon commission. In other words it says there is the problem, and what should we do to remedy the situation? In the chapter entitled "Equalization" the commission is of the opinion that the time has arrived when there should be equalization of freight rates in Canada as far as that is possible. To say in a report that there should be equalization is one .thing, and to put it into effect is another. There are many interpretations of equalization. There are any number of railway cases from which, if one were to read them, one would find different aspects as to equalization. But the royal commission has a formula. It suggests that the present standard mileage class rates be abolished and instead thereof there be established a new uniform class rate scale which, by virtue of the amendments referred to in part I, as I call it-the first part-of the report would have the effect of equalizing those rates across the country.
The complaints in effect boil down to the question of the rate structure. The complaints say that the board has not always done what it should have done, or again that the board did not have the power to do what we wanted it to do, or again that the board has no power to do some of the things that should be done to equalize the rates. In this report every complaint raised by the provinces was analysed critically and was investigated; and the commission came to the conclusion that the best way in which to deal with that problem was, first of all, to eliminate the class rates which exist in Canada at this time and

to establish in lieu thereof a uniform normal class rate; next, to eliminate the variety of commodity rates and to establish uniform rate scales for each commodity; then, third, to equalize to the extent feasible specific commodity rates. That is a difficult job. That is a task which it will take time to deal with and to dispose of satisfactorily.
The report suggests some eighteen to twenty amendments to the Railway Act which would help to bring into effect this policy of equalization. But the commission makes it clear that these amendments to the Railway Act will not in themselves answer the purpose. The commission says that it will be for the board and the railways to carry out the suggestions and the recommendations which are referred to in the report.
Coupled of course with the question of equalization is the link between the east and the west, the bridge, or the maintenance of the roadbed of the two railways. The one I think goes with the other. Excepted by the commission from the recommendations on the subject of equalization are certain rates such as international rates, export and import rates, competitive rates, agreed charges, rates on railways other than the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., and the Crowsnest pass rates, all of which, of necessity, must be eliminated because amendments to the Railway Act could not deal with these specialized rates since they are influenced by other factors.
Then the commission suggests that the general freight rate investigation ordered by the government some time ago should be an efficient means of carrying out this recommendation. My hon. friend says: On this as well as on the other matters, what is the attitude of the government? What is the government going to do about it? I need hardly tell the committee that the report was handed to me less than five weeks ago. It had to be printed, translated and submitted to the government. The government gave it some study, but the government has not been able to give to all of it the study it deserves.
I have appointed in my department a committee to deal with amendments required to bring into effect the first part of this report, namely the equalization of freight rates. That committee is now working on legislation to implement, by way of amendment to the Railway Act, the recommendations of the report with regard to equalization. That is a difficult job-far more difficult that I had anticipated at the outset, because the work of the committee has now reached the point where it is necessary to analyse a multitude of sections of the Railway Act-and there are hundreds of them-to ascertain what effect

these eighteen or twenty amendments would have on the rest of the sections. That in itself is a difficult task. How soon a draft will be prepared for submission by myself to the government, I am unable to say. All I can say is that, when the draft is prepared, I will submit it to my colleagues to ascertain whether or not it will be possible to present at this session legislation implementing the first part of this report.
The second part of the report deals with the financial structure of the Canadian National Railways, and I do not want to spend too much time on that aspect. The committee is familiar with the presentation made to the royal commission on transportation by the president of the Canadian National Railways and with the plan which he submitted to the commission. The commission decided not to adopt his plan. They had a plan of their own which I think accepts to a large extent, although not entirely, the representations of the Canadian National Railways. That plan can be found in the second part of the report. As to that plan, I can tell the committee that the government has not yet had time to give consideration to it.
The third part of the report, that having to do with the co-ordination of transportation facilities by the establishment of a board or commission or body or central authority which would co-ordinate the activities of the Canadian maritime commission, of the board of transport commissioners and of the air transport board, is one which I think should be of interest to the house.
The chapter dealing with the national transportation policy is I think one of the most interesting to read. In the first part of the chapter will be found in condensed form what has been the transportation policy up to date. It was prepared after a great deal of study, and should commend itself to all hon. members. I need hardly add that, so far as that part of the report is concerned, the government has been unable to give it any study whatsoever.
The other parts of the report that are of interest deal with the Crowsnest pass rates, where there is no change in the present position. The commission reports that these rates were partly established by the board of transport commissioners, partly by the railways and partly by act of parliament. In the case of statutory rates it would be for the government to present legislation amending the rates if that should be the feeling. So far as I know there is no such intention.
With regard to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, slight amendments are recommended. Then there are a number of amendments having to do with accounting and statistics.
Supply-Transport
Others deal with the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, which will give the Canadian National Railways and the house an opportunity of seeing what remedies and what economies the railways are able to put into effect, by having the Canadian National Railways include a reference to this subject in their annual report, which can be studied by the railways and shipping committee.
The accounting and statistics chapter has to do with uniform accounting and I think that should commend itself to hon. members. On the whole the report is an excellent one, and should be of great help to the government and to parliament in the years to come.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked a number of specific questions, which I do not think I need answer in view of the general picture in so far as the first part of the report is concerned.
My hon. friend has suggested that we be given an opportunity to discuss this report. Well, I think that is one of the reasons why the estimates of the Department of Transport were called. They were called so that the house could be given an opportunity of discussing the report. My hon. friend has suggested that the report be submitted to a committee. I hardly think that he really wanted that because if the legislation, which I referred to a moment ago, is brought down, it might be referred to a committee. I think it would be duplication to refer the report to a committee, because we have referred the question to a commission and they have made those recommendations, and the government has now to decide whether it will adopt them in whole or in part.


Howard Charles Green: The minister means that any legislation brought in will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Lionel Chevrier: What I mean is that legislation having to do with equalization, if it is approved of by the government, could, I think, be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, if it was the wish of the house.
The hon. member for Cape Breton South dealt with an important subject in so far as he is concerned, and in so far as several members on this side of the house are concerned, namely, the bridging of the strait of Canso. He said that was a matter which had been discussed for many many years. I was interested in the remarks which he had to make; in fact I was quite pleased with the attitude he adopted. I thought it was a fail attitude in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned. But I think he is mistaken honestly if he thinks that there

Supply-Transport
has been any undue delay, or that there have been any obstacles placed in the way of the implementation of the report of the board of engineers.
Some months ago a board of engineers, established by the government and by the province of Nova Scotia, reported upon the question of transportation across the strait of Canso. After having considered four methods, namely, improved water transportation facilities, a tunnel, a causeway and a bridge, they favoured the construction of a low-level bridge. They recommended in favour of the construction of a low-level bridge at a cost of $13,500,000, and they recommended that after careful consideration. But they also suggested to the government that a contract be made immediately for the purpose of taking borings to ascertain whether there was any overburden. After the contract was given it was discovered that there was a substantial amount of overburden in the strait which I think had some effect upon the problem as a whole.
I am not an engineer, and of course cannot approach this from an engineering standpoint, but I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that this is a difficult engineering problem because you have a very deep strait, in some places nearly 200 feet. You have currents and tides, and you have ice, all of which added together pose a difficult engineering problem, I am informed. In any event, the board of engineers recommended in favour of the low-level bridge, and we engaged a competent engineer, namely, Dr. Pratley, whose reputation is among the highest in his profession. Dr. Pratley prepared plans and specifications for the construction of a low-level bridge. Objection was taken to these plans and specifications by engineers of both the province of Nova Scotia and the Canadian National Railways. On the day the house adjourned in September of last year I had the advantage of listening in my office to the discussion that went on among all of these groups over these plans and specifications. After hearing the discussion I could come to no other conclusion than that the proper thing to do was to reconvene the board of engineers, the members of which were present, by the way, at this discussion and, in the light of those discussions, ask the board, "Have you anything further to recommend, in view of what you have already recommended? Have you anything further to tell the government, in view of the overburden that has been found there and in the light of the discussions that took place between these three various groups of

engineers today?" The board has been reconvened. They have not yet handed down their report. When they will do so, I am not able to say definitely, but I trust it will be before the end of the session.
So that I can assure my hon. friend from Cape Breton South that there has been no undue delay, and there has been no obstacle placed in the way. I do hope that the reconvened board will report soon. What they will report I do not know. If I were an engineer I could deal more specifically with the points involved; but I hesitate to do so because I think I might be treading on rather dangerous ground.
I think I have dealt as fully as I can with the complaints of the hon. member for Cape Breton South, and I believe as completely as I can at this time with the suggestion and questions of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra.


Howard Charles Green: There was one further question, and that was as to the progress made in the general rate investigation by the board of transport commissioners.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry to report that
there has been little progress made. The reason for that is that when the board reconvened its sittings to deal with the general freight rates investigation early this year the provinces moved immediately for a stay of proceedings and a stay of the hearing until such time as the royal commission had handed down its report. The board agreed to that motion made by counsel for the provinces, and fixed a further date. When that date had been reached the report had not yet been tabled, and a further adjournment was granted.
In view of the recommendations of the commission now I think it would be in the interests of the country for the board of transport commissioners to get along with this investigation as quickly as possible. I can see no objection to the board's proceeding now with the investigation while we deal with the amendments that might be necessary in connection with the Railway Act. When its report is ready it may very well be that if we are ready with our amendments to the Railway Act they will be of some assistance to the board of transport commissioners. But in fairness to the board I must say that they cannot proceed with the investigation until such time as the provinces and railways are ready and willing to proceed.


Mr. Black (Cumberland):: Mr. Chairman,
this is a very important discussion. We are under obligation to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra for his summary with

respect to the report of the royal commission on transportation. It is a subject of wide concern, and I do not feel capable of discussing it as it should be discussed.
The minister has said that these estimates were called for the purpose of permitting a general discussion on this subject, as well as other transportation matters. That is hardly fair to hon. members. I, for one, did not know the estimates of this department were being called.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that was one of the
reasons.


Percy Chapman Black: I do not think
the minister knew they were being called, either.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I did.


Percy Chapman Black: I understood
some other departments were to be called.
I am sure there are some members who would have liked to be here to discuss this subject, had they known that this was the occasion upon which these matters were to be discussed. I know there are some who should be here, whether they want to be here or not, in order that they might speak for their constituencies.
The matter of transportation is very important to all the provinces, but to no provinces is it more important than to the maritimes. We would never have entered confederation had it not been for the fact that transportation was being dealt with. Nova Scotia and the other maritime provinces, as well as the western provinces, have made representations before this royal commission. They have spent weeks-yes, months-in the study, and have engaged the services of experts.
Speaking for myself, until I have had the opportunity of learning the views of those who represented Nova Scotia at the hearings, I would not be in a position to state to the committee the viewpoint of that province in relation to the commission's findings. I know there is discontent in Nova Scotia and in the other maritime provinces in the matter of transportation as it affects those provinces. I know that steps should be taken to make it easier for the producers in the maritimes to market their products. I do not feel that I, as one of the representatives from the maritimes, am in a position tonight to deal adequately with the subject.
I do not fail to pay great respect to the commissioners as capable men who have given the matter of transportation thorough study. I am not saying their findings are correct, but I realize that we must pay them great respect. They are outstanding men,
Supply-Transport
and I believe their service to Canada will be valued for many years to come.
They have dealt with some special matters, one of which is the maritime freight rates as proposed by the Duncan commission in 1927. Their recommendation is that it be accepted as a permanent feature in the freight rates structure of Canada. I believe that is considered essential by the people of the maritime provinces, but it is not enough to meet the requirements
They have made reference to the Chignecto canal. The commission in its report has turned thumbs down on that project. Whether they were qualified to do so, I have my doubts. I do not believe for instance they considered the matter from the standpoint of defence. In my view the building of the Chignecto canal is of great importance from the standpoint of the proper defence of North America, and I do not believe that phase was studied.
They referred to the Chignecto canal as a commercial undertaking that should pay its way. Certainly that is the effect of their finding and no other canal has been so treated. This project has been promised to that part of Canada since the days of confederation. Even if it will cost more than some people think it should, it should not be put on a paying commercial basis. The people of the maritime provinces feel that it should be built as a commitment on the part of Canada. No adverse report by this commission with respect to the building of this canal should be accepted as final.
Before I would be in a position to discuss their recommendation I should like to hear from the committee from the maritime provinces that gave months to a study of this project. They sent up the largest delegation that had ever come to Ottawa from the maritime provinces to urge the construction of this canal. The personnel of this committee gave much time and expended large sums to arrive at their conclusions and they will be dissatisfied with the adverse report by this commission, no matter how able it may be. From representations that have been made to me I know that there is great dissatisfaction with this report on the part of many people in the maritime provinces. I am not in position to discuss the report in detail and I do not think it was expected that it should be discussed at this time.
I should like to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton South with respect to the Canso bridge and say that I agree with much that he has said. There is great dissatisfaction in Nova Scotia that more headway has not been made in the

Supp ly-Transport
construction of this bridge. The delay is simply one more disappointment as far as we are concerned, especially when a definite undertaking was given by the minister and by the government before and during the last election that the bridge would be constructed. The results up to now are practically nil.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: The engineering difficulties are greater after an election.


Percy Chapman Black: That appears to be it. The people of Cape Breton and Nova Scotia are not satisfied with the progress that has been made. I do not want to be too critical of the minister, but I do not think there is justification for the delay in the construction of the Canso bridge in view of the definite undertaking by the minister and the government.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member says that he agrees with the hon. member for Cape Breton South, but he is disagreeing with him now.


Percy Chapman Black: If I am disagreeing with the hon. member, the people of Nova Scotia are agreeing with me. I do not think there is much more that I can say. The minister states, for the first time to my knowledge, that the engineers are again in consultation and I suppose they will bring in a further report before long.


Lionel Chevrier: I have made that statement three times already.


Percy Chapman Black: The minister has made it again tonight. All we can do is wait to see what their report is going to be and what steps will be taken to have the Canso bridge built. With the entry of Newfoundland into confederation and the importance of the steel and coal industries to our defence efforts it is more important than ever that the Canso bridge be built without further delay. Speaking for the people of Nova Scotia I can say that there is grave disappointment that more headway has not been made in the construction of the Canso bridge in view of the definite undertaking given more than two years ago to the people of Nova Scotia and all Canada by the minister and the government. We shall just have to wait and see what is to be done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I should like to make a few comments on this matter. I feel, like the hon. member for Cumberland, that we have rather unexpectedly been pressed into the consideration of a document which I consider to be of great importance. I hope the minister is listening to me because I am going to ask him to consider whether it
IMr. Black (Cumberland).]
might not be a good thing to allow this to stand while he and I and many other people here go to pay our respects to the president of the French republic.
I hope the minister will forgive me for saying that I am reminded of a remark made in the British house of commons by the Right Hon. Anthony Eden to a minister who had dealt with a certain subject. He said that the minister had taken an amiable gallop through the material. I think that is just what the Minister of Transport has done tonight because after all this report is packed full with a great deal of important material.
I think we will all agree with what has been said about the tremendous importance of transportation in the days that we are now facing. The other night we heard an interesting description of the development of the Northwest Territories to the point where a new form of government is being set up. Up to the present the development in this country has been a kind of ribbon development, but I believe we are on the verge of great expansion. If the urgency of the defence preparations continues, I suppose our north country may develop in a way we can hardly imagine.
I realize that we cannot ask the minister to get up and announce government policy in connection with the twelve or fifteen things that are in this report. Perhaps it might be argued that there is no point in spending many hours in debating this report. But the fact is that the report contains many things on which we need education and on which the public needs education. One which seems to me to bristle with difficulties and to be of great importance is the relationship between road and rail transport which is dealt with in the report.
There is another thing that I put to the minister as a matter which perhaps it would be reasonable to ask a statement on, and this was referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra. At the top of page 131 of the report reference is made to possible railway development, and I quote from the report:
It seems to be generally assumed that most, If not all, railway expansion in the foreseeable future will be carried on by the government of Canada or by the Canadian National Railways which the government owns.
Then it speaks about the ill-conceived and therefore excessive construction. None of us will deny that there have been ill-conceived and excessive railway developments in the past. We can look back to the first ten years of the century as being a most extravagant time, yet if you go further back and consider the earlier railroads, I suggest to the minister that things might have been different when

the Canadian Pacific railway was built if they had applied the test contained in the second sentence on page 131 which reads: ... no railway ventures will be undertaken excepting after thorough investigation of each project and always with due regard to the financial commitments involved.
To that I must add:
. . . and unless it is needed by the settlers already established in productive areas.
On the one hand we do not want to indulge in foolish and harum-scarum development but on the other hand I imagine the minister will agree with me that if that test had been applied to the C.P.R. it never would have been built. It is the C.P.R. actually to which this country in its early decades of expansion after confederation owed such a lot. It did not wait to serve already existing settlements. It went ahead of settlements in many cases and enabled the country to be developed.
I am not going to dwell on that point. I am' only raising it because there seems to be a statement here that something is generally assumed. I personally would not assume it at all. For instance, at the present time I suppose the most important railway development now under way is that going into the new iron mines of Labrador. If I am correct that is an entirely private enterprise. Would the minister say whether that is so?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would hope that there may be many others, and I would think that other people in this house who share my view as to the best way to expand the country's facilities would agree with me on that. Therefore, without wishing to make heavy weather about this or to stress it unduly, it seems to me that we might at some early time ask for a statement from the government as to whether a thing of that kind, which is stated as an almost self-evident fact, does or does not carry the approval of the government. I come back to what I said at the outset. Is there not some sensible way in which we can have this report considered by the house? I confess quite frankly that I have not read it. There seem to be a lot of things in it, and I happen to know there are other people who are not in the house tonight who would like to have a chance to discuss this very important report. I suggest to the minister that he might consider whether adequate time ought not to be provided to consider it. The minister has pointed out, and I think quite correctly, that we are now on the transport estimates and this is the natural time to discuss it, as we are in fact discussing 80709-106
Supply-Transport
it. However, we are doing it in a rather thin house and, as I say, rather by surprise and in the absence of a good many people, or several people at any rate, who would like to have their say. I would hope that the minister might consider that it would be a matter of importance that this report, which I suppose is the most important of its kind that we have ever had, might have adequate time for consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I hope that in anything I have said I have not conveyed a wrong impression. The hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for Greenwood as well seem to be of the opinion that there will not be an opportunity to discuss the report, and that the house has been taken by surprise. I think it was in answer to a question by someone in the C.C.F. group that the Prime Minister announced that the report could be discussed when the estimates of the Department of Transport were up for consideration. I presume that this is not the only time that these estimates will be before the house, and I am sure that if anyone has been taken by surprise tonight he will not be tomorrow night, next week, or when these estimates are before the committee again. As the house knows, these estimates do not go through overnight. It has not been my experience at least that the house was so extraordinarily courteous to me that they put them through in a day, so I imagine we will have some discussion. My hon. friend, and the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, referred to a statement made by the commission on page 131. Surely these two hon. members are not serious when they want me to get up and comment on it. You could pick out hundreds of statements made throughout the report and ask the same question: is the government of this view; is the government of that view?
The answer to these questions is that when the government decides to implement the recommendations of the commission, as I indicated a while ago, it will bring legislation forward for the consideration of parliament. In so far as this particular matter is concerned, I think we have had before the house at the last and previous sessions acts of parliament dealing with certain railway ventures. We had a private bill to construct a railway in Labrador. We had one concerning the Temiscouata.


Howard Charles Green: That was not new.


Lionel Chevrier: We had one concerning the P.G.E. We have had several of them. In accordance with custom the government deals with each project seriatim, and I do not think

Supply-Transport
we will depart from that policy. I hope that is the answer that my hon. friend had in mind1.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I think it is reasonably clear that the minister does not make this assumption.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, thank you.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to support the request made by the hon. member for Greenwood. If the Minister of Transport feels that the argument was not as strong as it might be concerning the point that we were taken by surprise, might I underline the other point made by the hon. member for Greenwood. There are some members necessarily absent /might who wish to speak on this matter, and the first item in the minister's department seems to be the place for it to be discussed. It would also seem desirable to have a continuous discussion. If the minister and the government insist that the best members of the house, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra styled us, sit here for the rest of the evening, we may find ourselves changing the subject but still remaining on the first item. I think consideration might be given to the suggestion that the house adjourn.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not refer to that before I sat down. I think it is a matter for the house to decide. If the house is of the view that we should adjourn at this hour I have no objection.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: the adjournment of the house.
He said: The business for tomorrow will be the consideration of item No. 5, a resolution concerning emergency gold mining assistance; a motion to go into committee of supply for discussion of the estimates of the Department of Transport and Department of Agriculture, but not necessarily in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No motion is necessary.


Howard Charles Green: Could we not know whether it is the intention to continue with one department during the remainder of the day or whether both departments are to be considered?


Lionel Chevrier: I have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter with my colleague but if I could I should like to proceed tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the minister could
ask the Minister of Agriculture now.


Lionel Chevrier: I would rather leave it on
that basis, transport and agriculture, either one or the other, but not necessarily in that order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would it be possible for the various parties in the house to be informed tomorrow morning as to the order in which these departments will be called?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
of
HIS EXCELLENCY VINCENT AURIOL President of the French Republic
to

[Stage Direction]
in the
House of Commons Chamber, Ottawa on
Thursday, April 5, 1951
The President of the French Republic was welcomed by the Right Honourable L. S. St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Elie Beauregard, Speaker of the Senate, and the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald,
Speaker of the House of Commons.
(Translation):
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. President, in the lives of
nations and of parliaments, as in the lives of men, there are significant and unforgettable moments. Your presence today, within this Canadian House of Commons, marks such an occasion in the life of our parliament and of our country as a whole.
(Text):
It is a great honour, Mr. President, to welcome you today in this House of Commons chamber on behalf of the members of both houses of the parliament of Canada. We are happy to be able at the same time to greet the charming first lady of France and the Foreign Minister of the French republic, His Excellency Mr. Robert Schuman. You may be assured, sir, that this assembly is fully representative of all the people of Canada in the warmth of our welcome.
(Translation):
This is the first time that we have had the honour of welcoming to our country the chief of the French government. We rejoice at your visit and we are happy also that you have made this a family occasion, as well as a political one, by bringing with you Madame Auriol, who so fittingly represents the 80709-106J
domestic virtues, the charm and elegance of your country. We are happy also that you have brought with you Monsieur Robert Schuman, your Minister of Foreign Affairs, one of the great architects of European unity. Please allow me to associate, in the welcome we are extending to you, the names of Madame Auriol and Monsieur Schuman.
I extend this welcome on behalf of all of the people of Canada; first of all, on behalf of those of my race and yours, Mr. President, most of whom live in the great St. Lawrence valley, a valley where our common ancestors, in the belief that they were establishing a colony, founded a nation. I welcome you also on behalf of all Canadians, who, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, now make up a people bound by common national aspirations. Our people are proud of the honour of your friendship, a friendship of which I received such moving tokens from you and the people of Paris, only a few weeks ago.
It is fitting that this welcome should be given you in our parliament chamber where the whole country is represented. It is here indeed that the unity of our people daily finds expression. Here, in 1914 and in 1939, legislation was passed that brought Canadian soldiers to the defence of an ideal which we felt was so eminently upheld by your country.
1664	HOUSE OF
The President of France Here, in 1949, was ratified the North Atlantic pact, which unites our two countries and ten others more intimately than ever before in time of peace. Here, measures are now being enacted that are considered necessary to deal with the new threat to our common civilization and heritage. Here, too, ways are being discussed to avoid a new conflict that neither France nor Canada is seeking but for which we mean to be ready if it should become unavoidable.
(Text):
You are visiting Canada, sir, at a difficult time in the history of our two countries-a difficult time in the life of free men all over the world. We had set high hopes on the United Nations organization as an instrument of peaceful co-operation among men and1 governments of good will; we still hope there are in the world enough men and women of good will to assure the ultimate triumph of those high purposes. Unfortunately, one of the great powers bent on extending the domination of its dictatorial masters has constantly worked to spread among its people, and among the peoples already under its domination, distrust, fear and unfriendliness toward their fellow men. This it is which has made it necessary for us to join together to build up our own military forces, not for aggressive purposes but to deter aggression by a firm demonstration of our capacity to overcome it if necessary.
You come to us, sir, after spending a few days in the United States of America. You cannot fail to have been impressed by the strength of that great country, and also by the sincerity of the peaceful aspirations of all its people. Here in Canada you will not fail to note the close, friendly relations which bind us to our southern neighbours, and also the untrammelled independence we enjoy in our own land. If our frontiers bordered on those of some grasping imperialistic neighbouring state, we might not have this opportunity of welcoming you in a free parliament as the distinguished and respected head of a free France. Canada is, I think, the best evidence, permanent and historic evidence, of the peaceful purposes of the United States.
These confident, friendly and co-operative international relations which we enjoy with our great southern neighbours we wish to share ultimately with the whole world, and in the meantime we expect to share them with all the nations of the north Atlantic community. We know we can count upon the people of France, and we wish to assure you the people of France can count upon the good will and effective co-operation of all the people of Canada.

(Translation) :
I know that you share our convictions as to the means of warding off the danger which threatens us. This means is none other than the pooling of our forces in the face of any possibility of aggression and of any attempted domination or even intimidation.
As I have just pointed out, our generation has twice already seen Canadian soldiers fight as brothers-in-arms with French soldiers. Thousands of them rest side by side in the vast cemeteries of France.
It was not only your homeland that our Canadian soldiers went to defend, it was also their own, their physical as well as their spiritual homeland. Similarly, your own soldiers fought for an ideal greater than the defence of French territory. Neither you nor we could watch with indifference the fate of the glorious heritage which they preserved for us at the cost of their lives. Without a doubt, we wish to do everything possible to prevent a new disaster from sweeping down on our peoples, but we shall never give up the right to defend ourselves; we shall never try to escape the duty of helping to defend those who, like yourselves, are more immediately exposed than we.
Upon your return home, you may tell your compatriots that here in Canada you have met men of good will, a people anxious not only to prevent the iron curtain from falling on the shores of the Atlantic, but eager to ensure that the tricolour shall ever wave in the air of freedom, because the Canadian people realize that the free world would no longer be free if ever France or the Europe from which our ancestors came should lose their freedom.
Ladies and gentlemen, Monsieur Vincent Auriol, President of the French republic.
His Excellency Vincent Auriol (President of the French republic): Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of -the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, gentlemen: My heart is deeply touched with emotion and pride.
I realize the full significance for France of the warmth of your greetings, the acclamations of your people, the supreme honour you have done us in officially welcoming us in the imposing edifice of your parliament, and, finally, of the eloquence of the words just spoken.
I am fully aware of the value of this symbol: the President of the French republic bringing to Canada the affectionate message

of France on this very hill at the boundary of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, the meeting place of forces, young and eager, English and French, the union of which has created your nation, which increases in strength and grandeur every day and constitutes an immense human treasure for the future.
Sons of the British isles, sons of France, what a magnificent example is given to the world, what a long path travelled together!
Great Britain and France-how long we struggled and fought! But in those hard and often long battles there never appeared the slightest divergence in our conceptions of life, in our forms of civilization. The reconciliation has been complete, and together we may admire today this vigorous Canadian nation which is the expression, diversified but united, of the genius of the two races.
The meeting of our spirits has begotten your spirit. And this spirit, illuminated with idealism, guides you toward a magnificent future. The two ancient peoples, their rivalries forgotten, are proud to recognize something of themselves in your common fidelity, and to find themselves rejuvenated and more closely united by your extraordinary ascent. They are moved to see Montaigne and Shakespeare preside over your debates in common respect for human dignity and common love of liberty.
Mr. Speaker of the Senate, I beg you to accept, as a Canadian of French origin, the message of friendship I am bringing to the faithful guardians of the French language and culture. They prove that in a solid national unity like yours you nevertheless cherish, as we do in France, the memory of your origins, and you perpetuate the Christian and human civilization that France was the first to bring to you. Your history, as a matter of fact, is in some ways our history. As Maurice Barres has described it, "You have, as we did in France, reached the highway through bypaths, and you remain assembled beneath your banners". And those banners are always worthy of your love.
It is to you, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, that I address my message of friendship for the English-speaking Canadians, whose origin reminds us that Great Britain, also defender of the right, knew how to "beget consciences" and carry the flag of honour everywhere. A few months ago the world mourned the loss of a great Canadian statesman and a great democrat who, even in the darkest days, always affirmed his faith in the destiny of France. I pay respectful homage to the memory of William Lyon
The President of France Mackenzie King, one of the principal artisans of the common victory of the allies. As our poet Rutebeuf has said, "He was not one of those friends that the wind carries away when it howls around the door".
I greet also the Prime Minister, whose visit to Paris permitted us to admire his fine spirit and generous heart. I greet his colleagues of the government, and also, if you will permit it to an old opponent, the parliamentary opposition.
And now, gentlemen, I take this occasion to tell you that at this very hour the whole of France joins with you and with me in paying homage to the sacred memory of thousands of Canadians who, in the course of two world wars, fought and fell for the liberty of the world; and to their families and to their surviving comrades I bring our affectionate greetings and grateful sympathy.
At Vimy, where a memorial reminds us of their legendary heroism, at Tilloy, at Dieppe, at Bretteville-sur-Laize, at Beny-sur-Mer and in so many other places which speak of their courage, France, whose heart beat faster when she saw them parade through her towns, now tenderly watches over their eternal rest.
Finally, to the people of Canada I express the enduring friendship of France, our gratitude for all they have done for our liberation, and also for that inexhaustible generosity which, under the impetus of national and private organizations, has been lavish in its help to relieve the misery of our people exhausted by war and a long and awful oppression.
In this world which becomes every day smaller and smaller, and where the interdependence of nations is a fact, you have understood that our destinies are just the same, and that there are not for man, whether in the midst of storm or the calm of peace, several conceptions of virtue and honour.
Of this vital solidarity I never heard a more concise definition than that which I heard on the radio in a small mountain chalet where I had taken refuge after my confinement in prison, when I fled from the oppressor before my departure for London. "World prosperity, like security, is indivisible". They were the words of Mackenzie King. They must always be our common motto.
France, being the first country on the road of invasions and battles, knows perhaps better than anyone that security is indivisible. If

The President of France she had remained alone during the war she would have definitely succumbed. And with France enslaved, all Europe would have lost everything, even hope. If our old civilization were to disappear from Europe some day, what would become of the rest of the continents of the world in the face of an erupting Asia?
No nation, therefore, has the right to leave "to chance the smallest parcel of its security, its dignity or pride." Every nation has the duty to preserve the liberty of man against all those who would or could attempt, from their own autocratic will, to impose their fanatical ideology and thus unleash the most frightful of wars. Canada has understood this; for twice she has already given men, material and resources, an enormous and sacrificial contribution, to the victory of right and liberty.
Thus your determination has foiled the efforts of an enemy who hoped that, being far from Europe, you would not take any part in the conflict.
Certainly Great Britain could rely on your traditional loyalty, honour and courage. Certainly France could say she knew you were faithful to the motto of Quebec, "Je me souviens".
But the real truth is that the highest ideal inspired your action. You knew that liberty has no frontiers; that if anywhere in the world the light is extinguished, then the rest of the world is darker. You want to sustain the light and preserve for the nations the proud right to live in freedom and to flourish.
Thus you encounter France, because she has already experienced1 the horrors of war on her own soil, the sorrow of ruins because she knows what it is to endure, though temporarily, the oppression of foreign enslavement; because she experienced the mortal peril of solitude in the face of aggression she thought, like you, that our forces must be united in proper time for the founding of peace. With you, with Great Britain, with the United States, we had hoped that the charter of the United Nations, signed by all, would assure the protection of every nation by the organization of collective security, as well as the happiness of mankind by the co-operation of nations.
But the spirit of intolerance and the will to dominate has not permitted the materialization of this great hope. And the United Nations, partially paralysed, have not been
able to save countries from losing their independence again or men their liberty. Once again, one after another as before the last war, the free democracies have been smothered. Vast countries are closed and hostile to the rest of the world. Violence has reappeared and menaces; it even strikes. And so the great democracies enjoying civil liberties had to organize into regional defence pacts. It was with great relief that we greeted the conclusion of the pact among the north Atlantic countries, due in great part to the clairvoyant initiative of Canadian statesmen-this pact which, ratified by the unanimous vote of your parliament, has established a powerful bond between Europe and America, a bond among the peoples united by the same civilization and by the same desire and anxiety to protect and defend it.
If the aggressors of 1914 and 1939 had known that France was not alone, that Europe was not alone, they would have retreated from the criminal folly of their enterprise. History is the witness: solidarity in defence is a token of peace.
France wants neither war nor servitude. Her sole aim is peace in justice and freedom.
It is for common defence, but also for common prosperity, that France strives to create a united Europe, to build a young and coherent federation.
In the military field, a European army that will be integrated into the Atlantic bloc is the first link of collective security.
In the economic and social field, the free association of productive forces, of which the Schuman plan is the first step, has to organize collective prosperity.
Eventually, in the political field, the European council of ministers and the assembly of Strasbourg is the beginning of federal unity to which we wish to give strength and efficiency.
For the success of this great design we have silenced our resentments toward the enemy of yesterday, who nevertheless was responsible for the death by torture of the best of our citizens. Our only condition has been and remains that he shall not forget his crimes, and faults; that he shall renounce plans of domination and revenge; that he shall sincerely rally to the principles of democracy.
And so we want a democratic Europe, created not through the subordination of some nations to another, but through a fruitful harmony. And this free Europe, open to

all the peoples who respect the liberty of others, will associate itself with the new world so that upon this international economic and political co-operation may be built enduring peace.
Whatever it may cost us, the victory of peace is the prize.
Let us not miss any possibility of agreement, even partial, and no occasion to dissipate misunderstandings; but so long as the United Nations have not the necessary armed forces to maintain international order, we must neglect nothing in the organization of our common regional defence.
Let us not cease to proclaim the right and the principles of an enduring peace, but let us judge the sincerity of our partners by their acts and by their actual contribution to the easing of international tension.
France is not giving herself up to any naive neutralism, and whatever sacrifices our rearmament efforts add to our already crushing burdens for rehabilitation and re-equipment, we know that no sacrifice is as heavy as that of liberty.
There is no better testimony of our resolution than the heroism of our soldiers who are fighting in Korea in the service of the United Nations, and for more than four years have been fighting in Indo-China, where it is now recognized, after much injustice, that they defend no selfish interest but the independence that France has given to the young states of Viet Nam, Cambodia and Laos. They mount guard at the gates of southeast Asia.
France is thus faithful to her traditions and the ideal of our common civilization.
Momentarily exhausted by the wounds she received while the world was unorganized, she always knows that it is in the exaltation of the spirit that great things-the proud cathedrals and lofty monuments of right- are wrought.
With Great Britain, Canada and the United States, and the free world, France shares a common faith. And the visit of the President of the French republic to your country is not only the manifestation of the enduring affection of France, but the expression of our will to work together to achieve greater liberty, greater justice and greater fraternity.


Hon. Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate):: Mr. President of the Republic, the
Canadian Senate joins with the Prime
The President of France Minister in greeting you as the first citizen of France and in wishing you a most cordial welcome.
To your visit among us we owe the honour to pay our respects to Madame Auriol and the pleasure to renew acquaintance with some of the best builders of the alliance of nations and of world peace.
Even before your arrival we had heard of the message you bring to America, a message of co-operation and of solidarity. It will help strengthen the feeling of true democracy that Canada has inherited from its two mother countries.
The position of our country-a country in some respects so new-its abundant natural resources and its life ideals have caused it to occupy in the council of nations a place formerly held by nations of greater population.
Canada enters the scene at a time when western democracies must, more than ever before, maintain a social order mindful of the true scale of values, where money serves production, where production serves humanity and humanity itself serves an ideal that gives life its true meaning.
That objective has always been pursued by the civilizing power that is France. Today, the French people, who have witnessed, within thirty years, two invasions, two victories and, need I add, two post-war periods, remain the unconquered champions of human freedom. Not only have the French people fought alone for several years against Asiatic communism, but they remain the cornerstone of the fortress which western democracies must build in Europe.
Four million Canadians share with the French people an inalienable heritage based on a glorious past and a culture of universal significance. One of your historians was thinking of that past and culture when he said that England is an empire, Germany a country, and France a lady. May I be permitted to offer to that lady, the mother of letters, arts and arms, the tribute of our attachment and of our admiration.
(Text):


Hon. W. Ross Macdonald (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Mr. President, the
Speaker of the Senate has expressed to you in the beautiful French language our appreciation of your eloquent and inspiring address. May I add an expression of appreciation in the English language. Canada is a bilingual country, and whether we speak in French or in English we speak the language of Canada.

The President of France
Canada over the years has been honoured by visits by the heads of state of several great countries, but never in its history by the President of France. Canada was discovered by a Frenchman in 1534. Our existence, therefore, has been known for 417 years, and although it could hardly be said that we have waited all those years for this visit, nevertheless I can assure you, Mr. President, that the warmth of our welcome is in direct ratio with the warmth of the 417 summers of our existence.
As we listened to your address this afternoon we recalled that when we go back to the birth of our nation we go back to France. It is interesting to note that when the first Frenchman arrived in Canada he sailed up those great waters which were to be known as the St. Lawrence or St. Laurent, and that when the first president of France to visit Canada arrived in our country he was greeted by a great prime minister bearing the same name, St. Laurent.
It was Jacques Cartier, a Frenchman from St. Malo, who first set foot in Canada and carried the cross and the fleur-de-lis to the island of Hochelaga. It was another Frenchman, Champlain, who established the first

colony in Canada and founded the city of Quebec. It was a French Jesuit priest, Marquette, who first sailed in a frail canoe through the treacherous waters which led to the great lakes and on to the Mississippi. It was French civilization which was first implanted in Canada. Since that time we have added the customs, the traditions, the language and the literature of the British, and, in more recent years, of many other countries. In 417 years we have grown from a trading post, to a colony, to a nation. The progress which we have made would not have been possible had we not been blessed with peace. Throughout our history we have never had an extensive war within our boundaries. Geography, partly, has made that possible for us. We trust that in the future the good sense and the unselfish spirit of mankind will make that possible for France.
On behalf of the members of the House of Commons of Canada I would ask you to extend greetings to the members of the national assembly of France, and to assure them that your visit has made even stronger the ties which bind Canada and France together as friendly peace-loving nations. Vive la France! Vive le Canada! Vive le Roi! Vive le President!

Friday, April 6, 1951